December 8, 2006

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said that Kirkpatrick, who had a reputation as a blunt and acerbic advocate, "stood up for the interests of America while at the U.N., lent a powerful moral voice to the Reagan foreign policy and has been a source of wise counsel to our nation since leaving the government two decades ago. She will be greatly missed."

Reading the report, it is clear the Washington Post considers her leading attributes "blunt and acerbic."

I suppose this is by way of reconfirming their opposition to any U.S. ambassador to the UN who, like Jeane Kirkpatrick or John Bolton, might be thought by the snakes nesting at the UN as "blunt and acerbic."

Too bad the likes of her could never be confirmed in our lifetimes. Her country was better for her; she'll be missed.

Will, Don't kill the messenger, she was conveying the sentiments of her govt. I beleive Britain and the US were at odds over the Falklands. I think the US had offically denounced Britain's efforts to place sanctions on Argentina. I can't remember who it was, but somebody in the cabinet (Possibly SecDef Haig) alerted the Argentinian govt. to the coming invasion only hours before it occured.

At the time, the US viewed Britain's "meddling" in South American affairs as potentially dangerous because of the fears more SA countries would be pushed towards the Soviet Union for security assurances/military aide.

When I was young and partisan, Jeane Kirkpatrick bugged the hell out of me with her speech about "Blame America first." But now, with time, it's clear she was right. It's a huge aspect of our culture now. The practical result of the Vietnam syndrome was the total loss of confidence not just in our capabilities, but in our moral judgment. How dare we think our system is better than the Communists? How dare we speak of freedom and democracy? What about United Fruit and Guatemala? What about the Shah? What about the Phillippines? What about the way we treated the American Indians? And by the way, we really weren't so great during WWII! Hiroshima! Dresden!

There is a mistaken belief this syndrome died with the end of the Cold War, or with Gulf War I, but it didn't. There is also a mistaken belief that it is a purely Democratic Party illness, but I think there are lots of Republicans afflicted with it--James Baker for instance. Somehow, in his mind, the "deterioration" in Iraq is our fault. Why is that assumed to be so? Did we give these militias the idea that they should start killing each other? If you walk back the cat of Baker's POV, the original sin was ignoring the "realist" position that the bloodthirsty, genocidal outlaw Hussein was a boon to "stability." The U.S. had no opportunity to make it better.

What I'd've rather seen is a thorough, brutal critique of the Bush Administration's mistakes in Iraq. I don't think our weak position there was at all inevitable. But that's what Baker & co. think.

When I was young and partisan, Jeane Kirkpatrick bugged the hell out of me with her speech about "Blame America first." But now, with time, it's clear she was right. It's a huge aspect of our culture now. The practical result of the Vietnam syndrome was the total loss of confidence not just in our capabilities, but in our moral judgment. How dare we think our system is better than the Communists? How dare we speak of freedom and democracy? What about United Fruit and Guatemala? What about the Shah? What about the Phillippines? What about the way we treated the American Indians? And by the way, we really weren't so great during WWII! Hiroshima! Dresden!

There is a mistaken belief this syndrome died with the end of the Cold War, or with Gulf War I, but it didn't. There is also a mistaken belief that it is a purely Democratic Party illness, but I think there are lots of Republicans afflicted with it--James Baker for instance. Somehow, in his mind, the "deterioration" in Iraq is our fault. Why is that assumed to be so? Did we give these militias the idea that they should start killing each other? If you walk back the cat of Baker's POV, the original sin was ignoring the "realist" position that the bloodthirsty, genocidal outlaw Hussein was a boon to "stability." The U.S. had no opportunity to make it better.

What I'd've rather seen is a thorough, brutal critique of the Bush Administration's mistakes in Iraq. I don't think our weak position there was at all inevitable. But that's what Baker & co. think. America can only stir it bad.

Stevenson is remembered because he got religion when the Kennedys showed him the pics of the Soviet buildup in Cuba.

It is obvious why Moynihan and Kirkpatrick are the other two who left an impression by their service at the UN. Perhaps Bolton will be another.

The UN is not some kind of mystical world congress. It is simply an organization where all governments, from Nauru to the US are represented and treated equally. The UN does not care how those governments got into power and happily salutes butchers and mountebanks as "honorable and esteemed representatives" of the democratic peoples republic of Turdistan.

good thing about the UN is that it is a place for these tyrants to pursue their ends in a somewhat peaceful manner. Stevenson, Moynihan, Kirkpatrick, and perhaps Bolton respected that but were not afraid to point out some of the backsliding.